Is Belief in Christ’s Deity Required for Eternal Life in John’s Gospel?

By Kenneth M. Wilson

Kenneth M. Wilson, M.D., is a board certified orthopedic surgeon and practices hand surgery in Salem, Oregon. He received his Master of Divinity degree from Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary and a Master of Theology degree from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. A major portion of this article was written to fulfill requirements for a Christology course at GGBTS. Ken lives with his wife, Lynn, and four children on their farm in Oregon. He may be reached at wilsonmd@ canby.com.

Introduction

The term “Son of God” in the Gospel of John has been understood by many persons as referring only to the messianic role of Jesus. Accordingly, they do not derive the divinity (deity) of Jesus from this title, but only his humanity. This poses an intriguing question because in John 20:30–31, one must believe in the Christ, the “Son of God,” to receive eternal life. So, what must one believe about Jesus Christ to receive the gift of life? Must a person believe that Jesus is God in order to have eternal life? The answer has obvious implications for one’s eternal destiny.

None of the other Gospels clearly presents Jesus Christ as preincarnate God—deity who existed prior to becoming human. Along with many others, Erickson claims that all of the Gospels were written with the same purpose as the Gospel of John, [1] yet he acknowledges, “John is the only evangelist to clearly identify Jesus as divine.” [2]

John’s Gospel is the only one with the stated purpose of using signs as an apologetic for belief in Jesus Christ unto eternal life. [3] None of the Synoptic Gospels claims this purpose. The book of Luke-Acts appears to be written to a believer, Theophilus, who needed an accurate chronological account of the facts of Jesus’ life; thus, he may have already believed that Christ was God incarnate (Luke 1:3–4; Acts 1:1). [4] In contrast, John’s purpose for writing his Gospel appears in 20:31: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name.” Thus, A. T. Robertson, [5] Witherington, [6] and others perceive John’s Gospel as written to unbelievers.

Why is John’s Gospel so focused on the deity of Jesus? We may further ask, Does John’s statement of purpose explain more completely what one must believe about Jesus Christ to obtain eternal life?

If “Son of God” does not contain a denotation of divinity, then justification to eternal life can occur through believing in the mere human Messiah whom the ancient Jews anticipated. If “Son of God” is purely messianic, then faith in Christ’s divinity is not a requirement for eternal life. If, however, the term denotes divinity in John’s Gospel, then belief in the deity of Christ is essential for eternal life. The answer to this question determines eternal destinies.

The View of “Son of God” as Messianic

Barrett,7 Beasley-Murray, [8] F. F. Bruce, [9] Hobbs, [10] Richardson, [11] and others— all view “Son of God” as a purely messianic term. Fuller agreed, writing, “We may therefore conclude that, like son of David, son of God was just coming into use as a Messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism.” [12] Marshall stated, “The early church was not specifically concerned in the beginning with the divinity of Jesus; this emerged as an inescapable corollary of Jesus’ position.” [13] Collins represents a more extreme position: “His [Thomas’] subsequent confession in 20:28 represents ‘the sole expression of the divinity of Jesus in the entire Fourth Gospel.’” [14]

Kasper typifies many authors who exclude any possibility of divinity in the term: “In discussing the title, ‘Son of God,’ we must not start from later dogmatic statements about Jesus as Son of God in a metaphysical sense. This sense is completely outside the conceptual possibilities of Jesus or the New Testament in terms of either Old Testament Judaism or of Hellenistic ideas. . . . According to the synoptic Gospels Jesus never describes himself as Son of God. Obviously the term ‘Son of God’ belongs to the Creeds of the Church.” [15]

However, some authors view the term as dependent upon the context, with resultant variations in meaning. In The International Bible Commentary, Ellis commented on “Son of God” in John 1:48: “On Nathanael’s lips this may mean little more than ‘Messiah’ (cf. Psalm 2:7); to the Evangelist it means much more.” [16] Reith supported this messianic concept with one important distinction:

The scope of this gospel is to prove that Jesus is all that is implied in these two titles, xx.31, therefore the prehistoric “Only begotten of the Father” and the historic “Christ.” That on the lips of a Jew in our Lord’s day the Messiah was meant by both titles is certain; but that both are therefore equivalent is improbable see on vv. 14, 18, 34. We must distinguish, however, between what Nathanael understood by such a designation as ‘Son of God,’ and what afterwards was known to be involved of the Son’s pre-existence and necessary relation to the Father. [17]

The Gospel’s first confession of “Son of God” by Nathanael appears to determine John’s understanding of the term in the remainder of the Gospel. This connection can be traced back through the centuries. John Chrysostom wrote, “Peter confessed Him to be ‘The Son of God’ but as being Very God; Nathanael, as being mere man. And whence does this appear? From what he said after these words; for after, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ he adds, ‘Thou art the King of Israel.’ But the Son of God is not ‘King of Israel’ only, but of all the world.” [18]

In contrast to Chrysostom, many early authors held that “Son of God” denoted the divinity of Jesus.

The View of “Son of God” as Divine

Early Authors

Had Chrysostom studied Tertullian’s work on the passage, he may have realized his error. Tertullian accurately concluded that Jesus “is the King of Israel because to Him has especially been committed the destiny of that nation . . . whereas even the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.” [19]

Other authors agreed. Nonnos of Panopolis (5th century) paraphrased John 1:49 in this way:

You are the Shepherd King of Israel, Christ at Hand,
Son of the everliving GOD, the Word.
And both as GOD-King of the Sons of Israel I hail You,
And true Son of the living GOD I will proclaim You! [20]

Earlier, Augustine had related in his Lectures on the Gospel of John, “Some great thing Nathanael may have understood in the saying, ‘When thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee, before that Philip called thee;’ for his words, ‘Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel,’ were not dissimilar to those of Peter so long afterwards, when the Lord said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’” [21]

John Calvin also viewed “Son of God” as expressing Christ’s deity:

As Nathanael knew that Christ did not see him after the manner of men, but by a look truly divine, this might lead him to conclude that Christ did not now speak as a man. The proof, therefore, is taken from things that are of the same class; for not less does it belong to God to see what lies beyond our view than to judge concerning purity of heart. Thou art the Son of God. 

That he acknowledges him to be the Son of God from his divine power is not wonderful; but on what ground does he call him King of Israel? for the two things do not appear to be necessarily connected. But Nathanael takes a loftier view. He had already heard that he is the Messiah, and to this doctrine he adds the confirmation which had been given him. He holds also another principle, that the Son of God will not come without exercising the office of King over the people of God. Justly, therefore, does he acknowledge that he who is the Son of God is also King of Israel And, indeed, faith ought not to be fixed on the essence of Christ alone, (so to speak,) but ought to attend to his power and office....[22]

Modern Authors

Numerous modern authors understood “Son of God” as indicating Christ’s deity. Ellis asserted, “‘Son of God’ can be used, as it is in the Synoptics, either for Jesus’ messianic kingship or for his preexistent divine nature. Used in the latter sense, it is equivalent to God and evokes from the Jewish churchmen a charge of blasphemy not unlike that in the Synoptics.”23 C. F. Moule also articulated the distinction between the Synoptics and John, understanding that the divinity of Christ was paramount in the fourth Gospel. Part of the strength of The Riddle of the New Testament, by the late Sir Edwyn Hoskyns and the late Noel Davey, was that, whatever reservations one might have about much of its argument, it showed the impossibility of analyzing out gospel traditions that made any sense at all, without the divine factor attaching to them. ‘To dissect’ is, in this case at any rate, ‘to murder.’ The divine is inseparably there all along.” [24]

Some authors interpret “Son of God” in the broader context of John’s Gospel. Pink observed, “That Christ shall ‘baptize with (or “in”) the Holy Spirit,’ was another proof of His Godhood.” [25] A. T. Robertson wrote concerning John 1:48: “He may have heard the words of the Baptist about Jesus (1:34) and now confesses fully both the Messiahship (King of Israel) and the Deity of Jesus.” [26] Similarly, Jenson denied that the status of Son merely meant Messiah for Matthew: “‘Are you the Son of the Blessed One?’ In this question, ‘Son of God’ is not merely a title of the Messiah, for claiming to be a political and religious Messiah was not as such blasphemy.” [27] Loader concluded, “Thus the fourth gospel exhibits a twofold phenomenon of being a ‘high’ Christology in the sense that Jesus is no mere man but a heavenly being, Son of God.” [28]

Kasper recognized the divine element in John’s Gospel. “The intrinsic unity of ontological and mission [messianic] theology became thematic, particularly in the fourth gospel. There is no doubt that this gospel speaks of a divine sonship of Jesus as ontologically understood . . . .The ontological statements are not understood in themselves and for their own sake, but are intended to bring out the soteriological interest.” [29] All of these authors understood the deity of Christ as paramount in interpreting John’s Gospel. The term “Son of God” expressed that deity. A purely messianic view is improbable as evidenced by their arguments.

John’s Internal Evidence for the Deity View

Overview of the Gospel of John

Köstenberger expressed the larger Johannine purpose as emphasizing Jesus’ deity and preexistence: “While the designation of Jesus as Son blends elements of his humanity and deity, other elements of John’s Christology focus more explicitly on Jesus’ divine nature.” He then lists the following five elements:

1. Jesus as the preexistent “Word” (1:1, 14) as well as other claims to Jesus’ preexistence (8:58; 12:41; 17:5)
2. Jesus’ “signs” (e.g., 2:11)
3. Jesus’ “I am sayings,” which allude to the Old Testament name of God (cf. esp. Ex 3:14)
4. Jesus’ possession of supernatural knowledge (1:48: Nathanael under the fig tree; 2:19: nature of Jesus’ death; cf. also 12:24; 11:14: Lazarus’ death; 13:38: Peter’s denials; 21:18–19: nature of Peter’s death)
5. Thomas’s confession of Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (20:28) [30]

Ellis observed the following witnesses in John: “It is significant that in the Fourth Gospel there are seven that bear witness to Christ’s Deity. First, John the Baptist (1:34); second, Nathanael (1:48); third, Peter (6:69); fourth, the Lord himself (10:36); fifth, Martha (11:27); sixth, Thomas (20:28); seventh, the writer of this Gospel (20:31).” [31]

The author of John’s Gospel provided eight signs of Jesus, [32] specifically for the purpose of creating belief in the person of Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. The eight sign-miracles of John were the following: (1) turning water into wine—2:1–12, (2) healing a nobleman’s son over distance—4:46–54, (3) healing the lame man at Bethsaida—5:1–15, (4) feeding the 5,000—6:1–14, (5) walking on water—6:15–21, (6) healing a man blind from birth—9:1–7, (7) raising Lazarus—11:1–44, and (8) the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ—2:18–22, 19:1–20:29. These sign-miracles convinced people that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (see 2:11; 4:53; 6:14; 7:31; 10:41–42; 11:45–48; 12:10–11, 37, 42; 20:8, 29). John said they believed as a result, not that believers followed in discipleship. The book was written around these proofs so that we might know what is required for eternal life.

In the extended prologue, John introduced Jesus as:

• Eternal Creator, vv. 1–3
• Light who gives life to mankind, vv. 4–13
• Only begotten Son of the Father’s glory, vv. 14–18
• Preexistent Messianic Lamb of God who takes away sin, vv. 19–30
• Son of God who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, vv. 31–34
• Messianic Lamb of God who should be followed, vv. 35–45
• Omniscient and omnipresent Son of God with direct access to heaven, vv. 46–51

These seven correlate with John’s eight signs and the seven “I am” statements. According to Carson, at least two “I Am” sayings “are undeniably absolute in both form and content (8:58; 13:19) and constitute an explicit self-identification with Yahweh, who had already revealed himself to men in similar terms (see esp. Isa. 43:10–11).” [33]

In the opening verses of his Gospel, John introduces Jesus in every manner by which in the remainder of the book he unveils Jesus’ uniqueness. The titles Christ, Lamb of God, Messiah, Son, Son of God, and Son of Man—all occur in the introduction. These are not isolated. The author deliberately interconnected them to portray Jesus as God-man.

The Eleven “Son of God” Passages

John’s Gospel contains eleven “Son of God” passages. The first one associates God’s Son with preexistence (1:34, “he was before me”). The second, Nathanael’s declaration of “Son of God” and “King of Israel” in 1:48, has been debated for over a millennium. However, omniscience and omnipresence may be implied. [34] The next chapter confirms this omniscience, for we read in 2:24, “But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all.” If true, the first two uses support the metaphysical concepts of the preexistence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Jesus.

The next three terms identify Jesus as granting eternal life as His sole prerogative (3:18; 5:25; 6:69). The seventh use (9:35) finds Jesus receiving worship because he is the Son of God. John then has Jesus publicly identifying himself as the Son of God (10:36), which to the Jews was blasphemy. Jesus raised Lazarus to life in order that the Son of God may be glorified (11:4). Martha believed Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, who could give eternal life and bodily resurrection (11:27). Jesus stood condemned to death by Jewish law for claiming to be the Son of God (19:7), not the Messiah. Finally, “Son of God” appears in the purpose statement of John’s Gospel: Belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, guarantees eternal life.

The concept of preexistence within the prologue has been well established. Alan Lewis correctly observed, “Ambiguity may attach to other areas of the New Testament from which a doctrine of preexistence has been induced; but the effort of some to banish that doctrine from John’s Prologue are [sic] unconvincing.” [35] It should not be surprising that the Gospel’s author would continue that concept into the testimony of John the Baptist.

The Baptizer’s proclamations enhance the argument for Jesus’ preexistence as deity. “He who comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me” (1:15). “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29)! “This is He of whom I said, ‘after me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for he was before me’” (1:30). “I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (1:34). These verses continue the attribution of preexistence to the Son of God as deity.

When the two disciples heard John point out, “Behold, the Lamb of God,” they had already heard and understood that this One existed before John and could take away sins—the sole prerogative of God (Luke 5:21). Therefore, here are two qualities exclusively reserved for deity that are clearly expressed in John’s extended prologue.

Jesus was preexistent and could forgive sin. It should not come as a surprise that one of those two disciples (Andrew) tells Peter in 1:41, “We have found the Messiah.” The Baptizer’s testimonies to the deity of Jesus apparently convinced Andrew that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Since all in the region came to hear John (Matthew 3:5; 4:25), they all also knew John’s statements about Jesus. News about John was widespread (Mark 1:28). The Jews even knew the family of Jesus well (Matthew 13:35). “As Rose well points out, in the minds of the Evangelists Jesus Christ was the Messias because He was the Son of God, and not the Son of God because He was the Messias.” [36] Hoskyns understood the Nathanael narrative as John’s way to “introduce the true interpretation of the words of the prologue ‘we saw his glory.’” [37]

Nathanael as a Prototype of Belief in Christ’s Deity (John 1:48)

The “Ludicrous” Response of Nathanael

John’s insertion of the Nathanael narrative bears investigation. A specific question should be asked: Why, after hearing only two sentences from Jesus, would Nathanael burst forth with the Johannine proclamation of eternal life in Jesus, matching the purpose statement in 20:31? Koester rightly had difficulty reconciling the most common interpretation of the narrative with Nathanael’s response. “The difficulty is that this view does not provide a connection between Jesus’ comment and the royal titles Nathanael immediately bestowed upon him.” [38]

Koetser rejected the Hebraic legal convention of “under the fig tree,” citing Brown [39] and Barrett. [40] He also marked as speculative the interpretations viewing the fig tree as a reference to a rabbinical study of the law and prophets, or a confession of sins. [41] Instead, Koester believed this referred to the prophetic Messianic Branch with “every man under his vine and his fig tree,” citing Zechariah 3:8–10; 1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; and 1 Maccabees 14:12 as Old Testament texts. [42] He demonstrated that John 1 contains numerous allusions to Jacob’s (Israel’s) guile and the ladder reaching to heaven with angels. According to Koester, Nathanael understood that Jesus was claiming to be the Davidic Messianic Branch, since “King of Israel” was an Old Testament term for Messiah. [43]

Although Koester may have correctly identified many aspects of this passage, he did not seem to appreciate the uniqueness of the Johannine term “Son of God.” He believed that the Old Testament designation “God’s son” in Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; and Psalm 89:26–27 simply meant Messiah, because Nathanael did not yet know Jesus really was God. [44] Later, “Nathanael and others like him would see God made manifest.” [45] Like many authors, Koester believed Nathanael perceived in the two titles the first level of meaning as a human Messiah, but not the second level of incarnate deity. This was consistent with many passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Midrash, and other rabbinic sources identifying the Branch as “Messiah, Son of God, and King of Israel,” by “the Jewish exegetes of the NT period.” [46]

Admittedly, this understanding of Son of God as purely messianic rather than divine has found broad acceptance. However, the question remains: Does this human messianic interpretation adequately explain Nathanael’s response? Does his proclamation about Christ naturally result from Christ’s two brief sentences to Nathanael? If Christ was simply using the fig tree as a reference to the Old Testament passages about the Messiah, what reason does Nathanael have to believe Jesus? This view cannot explain Nathanael’s overly dramatic utterance, which coincidentally matches John’s stated purpose in 20:31. Lindars astutely noted, “Nathanael’s confession of faith is so daring, and such a complete reversal of his contemptuous question in verse 46, that it seems to the modern reader an impossible conclusion to draw from Jesus’ display of insight and even strikes him as ludicrous.” [47]

Christ did not say he had merely heard that Nathanael was without guile, but was officially pronouncing Nathanael a true Israelite without deceit—a very strange occurrence, since he had never met the man. That is why Nathanael does not ask, “Where did you hear this?” Instead he asks, “How do you know me?” At this point Jesus captures the mind and heart of this disciple. His next sentence will convince a skeptical Nathanael of Philip’s claim to have found the Messiah. “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Why would this sentence convince Nathanael that Christ was the Messiah? Many persons in the Old Testament and New Testament had visions or supernatural knowledge. This short sentence should not have convinced a devout, skeptical Jew that the human who was speaking was Yahweh.

The Deity View Best Explains His Response

Multiple incidences indicate visions were not unusual around the time of Christ’s incarnation. [48] Because of this frequency, this account in John seems abnormal. Why did Jesus not say he had seen Nathanael in a vision? More importantly, why did Nathanael conclude that Jesus was the “Son of God” and the “King of Israel”? Why did he not assume that Jesus had seen a vision?

Nathanael must have understood Christ to mean more than some modern authors understand Him to have meant. A skeptic like Nathanael should not have exclaimed the messianic salvific proclamation as a result of being seen in a vision and having his character guessed by a man whom he had never met. [49] Yet Nathanael believed in Jesus as “the Son of God” and the King of Israel (Messiah) because of Jesus’ fig tree reference (John 1:50).

Whether or not we believe Nathanael should have understood Christ in that manner, Nathanael certainly perceived Christ’s words as uniquely sufficient to prove him to be Israel’s King and the Son of God. These concepts are frequently interpreted thusly: Christ was given revelation by God as to Nathanael’s character and a vision or insight by God as to Nathanael’s location. Yet these cannot prove that he was the Messiah, much less the Son of God.

Instead, Jesus proclaimed Nathanael’s guileless character on His own authority, not by a revelation from God. Nathanael heard Jesus say He had independently seen Nathanael under the fig tree, not that He had been given a vision or revelation from God. From Nathanael’s understanding, only God could proclaim a man’s true character and literally see him miles away. [50] Allegorical explanations of the fig tree cannot explain Nathanael’s response. As Ellis remarks, “Jesus’ omniscience is seen by his reference to the fig tree (48). There is no allegorical significance here.” [51] Numerous authors—Gaebelein, [52] Gill, [53] Godet, [54] Matthew Henry, [55] Pink, [56] Reymond, [57] Walvoord, [58] Westcott, [59] and others—understand this passage as indicating omniscience and even omnipresence of deity. Even a few authors who view “Son of God” from Nathanael’s mouth as purely messianic see Christ’s insight as divine knowledge highlighted by John. [60]

The divine concept of Jesus exactly fits both John’s introduction in chap. 1 and John’s purpose in writing the book (20:31). In his Gospel, John begins with a metaphysical declaration of Christ’s eternal person becoming human (1:1–18). The author records the witness of John the Baptist: “And I have seen and testify that this is the Son of God” (1:34). In v. 41, this was Andrew’s testimony: “‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated the Christ).” Philip joins the mounting testimony with “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and also of the prophets wrote” (1:45). The titles “Son of God” and “Messiah” in John’s introduction emphasize God becoming man in order to take away the sin of the world. These two specific titles represent his purpose for writing the Gospel.

John clearly stated the purpose of his written Gospel: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). Therefore, these two essential Christological confessions required for eternal life have already been introduced in chap. 1. Nathanael had heard from John the Baptizer that the Messiah was coming; now he had personally experienced His glory (1:14, 48). This is why Nathanael could exclaim those Christological truths.

Although some authors persist in assigning a more human messianic reference to “Son of God,” John has already introduced the “only begotten son” of God as the divine Logos of creation (1:18). [61] He has already announced His sacrificial future as the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (1:29). This God-man even had the power to baptize with God the Holy Spirit (1:33). John testified that Jesus was the uniquely divine Son of God (1:34). Therefore, we should strongly consider a divine component to Nathanael’s proclamation that Jesus was the Son of God as well as the King of Israel. This allows the context of the introductory chapter, the purpose of the book, and the response of Nathanael to coincide in revealing the preexistent God who became man. [62]

Arguments for Messianic vs. Divine Meanings

Dunn has argued for a limited view of Christ’s deity that developed over time, assuming a late date for the Gospel of John. According to Dunn, “‘Son of God’ primarily denoted the king as either descended from God or as God’s official representative, but there existed a wide range of meaning both in Greek and Hebrew literature at the time of Christ’s first advent.” [63] Yet he concludes, “To sum it up, it is quite clear that in the Johannine writings the divine sonship of Jesus is grounded in his pre-existence; whatever their context of meaning the readers could scarcely mistake this.” [64]

Hawton explained that there was no evidence that the title “Son of God” ever became a Messianic one. [65] Cullmann succinctly summarized the concept of a purely messianic Son of God: “The difficulty lies in the fact that no known ancient text definitely calls the Messiah ‘Son of God.’” [66] “Even if theoretically . . . the Jewish Messiah was now and then called ‘Son of God’, the complete lack of proof for his being given such a title indicates at least that it was not an essential attribute of the Messiah. Moreover, in the New Testament itself—even in the question of the high priest—the Son of God title is never the consequence of Jesus’ messianic calling.” [67]

Although Cullmann believed the title “Son of God” was bestowed by election rather than divine conception, he still viewed this term as expressing Christ’s deity in John’s Gospel.

The evangelist means it literally when he calls the logos “God.” This is confirmed also by the conclusion of the Gospel when the believing Thomas says to the risen Christ, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28). With this final decisive ‘witness’ the evangelist completes a circle and returns to his prologue. . . . If God has so revealed himself in the life of Jesus that in this life the whole fullness of the divine glory (δόξα) itself has become manifest (John 1:14ff.), then Jesus must also previously have been God’s revelation to men. Therefore, he is God in so far as God communicates himself. Therefore from the very beginning when one thinks of God, he must also think of Christ. [68]

The Roman Catholic author Mlakuzhyil posited a distinction. He believed the term “Son of God” in post-resurrection usage “would have the deeper ‘metaphysical’ meaning of divine Sonship. It is in this latter sense, and not in a mere Messianic sense, that the title is used in the conclusion (20, 31), since it follows immediately after Thomas’ confession in the divinity and the lordship of the risen Jesus (‘My Lord and my God’ 20, 28).” [69] Mlakuzhyil also distinguished between “the Son” and “Son of God.” “Unlike the title ‘the Son of God’ (which, as we have seen above, is sometimes used as a Messianic title), the absolute title ‘the Son’ (ho huios) usually indicates the unique divine sonship of Jesus to God the Father. . . . [Son of Man was used], as a theological bridge between the Messianic title ‘the Christ’ and the divine title ‘the son’ (of God).” [70]

Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus claimed (and was believed to have) the ability to personally grant eternal life, resurrect the dead, and preside as the eternal Judge (1:12; 4:14; 5:21, 22, 24, 26; 6:27, 40, 44, 47, 51, 54, 57, 58; 8:24, 51; 10:9–10, 28; 11:25–26; 12:48; 17:2–3). These internal and external arguments favor a meaning of deity for “Son of God.” However, the distinction between a functional and ontological deity must be considered.

Functional vs. Ontological Deity

Kasper, with many others, understood “Son of God” as a title of relationship through election to service, rather than a title based upon essence. “The title of Son of God therefore is understood, not as natural-substantial, but functionally and personally.” [71] He continued, “[Jesus] did however claim to speak and act in place of God and to be in a unique and untransferable communion with ‘his Father.’ This claim represents something unique in the history of religion which could not be adequately expressed by either the Jewish-theocratic or the hellenistic-essential understanding of Son of God.” [72]

In contrast, Carson wrote, “Jesus’ sonship to God, however functionally described, involves a metaphysical, not merely a messianic relationship (cf. notes on 5:16–30; 10:33).” [73] Marinus de Jonge said, “It does not make sense to play acting and being, function and nature, off against each other. In its ‘mythical’ discourse the Fourth Gospel is also dealing with the nature of the Son, in his relationship with the Father.” [74] Tenney agreed: “It implied a unity of fellowship between the Father and Christ which originated in unity of nature.” [75]

Murray concluded that, although admittedly the New Testament Christology is functional, theos [God] is a Christological title that is primarily ontological in character. “The presupposition of functional Christology is ontological Christology. Christ performs divine functions because he is divine.” [76] Murray’s meticulous analysis of theos places the climax of John’s prologue at v. 18, thus connecting the preexistent Logos (1:1), the incarnate Son (1:18), and the risen Christ (20:28): “The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity.” [77]

Bauchkam has argued for a distinction in John’s presentation of Jesus belonging inherently to who God is, rather than trying to explain his nature (what God is). [78] The Jewish understanding of God was relational, not metaphysical. Only later did the Greek influence shift the emphasis from divine identity (who) to divine nature (what). Judaism perceived Yahweh’s identity as the “sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things.” [79] Only Yahweh as God received exclusive worship as the only true God (John 9:35).

A problem occurs here with John 9:35 that is more serious than the textual variant between “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” [80] A Jewish man worships a man in response to being told he was speaking and looking at the Son of God/Man. Either the “Son of God” must signify deity, or the “Son of Man” must reveal deity. For whatever reason, this man responded in worship to the title “Son of God/Man.” It appears he concluded that the person bearing this title was worthy of worship as God. This was John’s purpose in including this particular sign of Jesus—that others might believe through the blind man’s belief (John 20:30–31). With this example, the apostle proves the title “Son of God/Man” was sufficient for worship of a human as Yahweh.

Von Wahlde explained that John 5:19–30 contained “some of the central convictions of Johannine Christology. In v. 20, Jesus explains that the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself does. In vv. 21–22, Jesus explains specifically that he has been given the power to give life and the power to judge, the two powers that are most characteristic of God the Father himself.” [81] Once again, a divine identity is expressed instead of a divine nature.

Although perhaps not as vital to a Jewish reader, a preexistent logos with omniscience and omnipresence would appeal to a Greek reader, [82] as well as being understood by a Jewish reader. As Dunn has stated regarding John 1:14, “the revolutionary significance of v. 14 may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from pre-existence to incarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.” [83] This was John’s purpose: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), and “believe in his name” (John 1:12).

What cannot be found in the Gospel is the bold statement: Jesus is God (YHWH). For a monotheistic society, this should not be surprising. Neither do we find the sentence “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God,” which is true even in the Pauline corpus. As a result, McGrath has argued that sonship described an agency of God rather than equality with God, so that monotheism was maintained in early Christianity and in John’s own mind. [84]

Yet this scarcely does justice to the context of John’s Gospel. The Christians’ recognition of Jesus’ deity proceeded from identity: 1) in relationship, and 2) in divine attributes—two elements that abound in the Gospel of John.

The prologue of John exalts the preexistence of Jesus with God as God (1:1). Six times his preexistence in heaven with God is purported (3:13; 6:38; 8:56–58; 12:41; 16:27–28; 17:5). The omniscience of Jesus can be found in four recorded instances (1:47; 2:24; 4:16–18; 6:64). [85] John even claimed that Jesus “knew all [men]” (2:24). This preexistent Lamb of God came to take away the sin of the world (1:29–30). In John 5:17–27, there are ten references to Son, with Jesus using “Son of God” and “Son of Man” interchangeably. To the Jews of Christ’s time, using the term “Son” was “making himself God” (5:17–18).

Contrary to Cullmann’s statement, [86] only a public declaration of his sonship could have allowed the ruling Jews to accuse him of equality with God (10:36). In 19:7, the Jews’ request to Pilate for Jesus’ death was based upon His claim to be the Son of God,not just the Messiah. Jesus had called himself the Son of God [87] in 5:25 and 10:36 (without variant readings). Jesus taught that it was his sole prerogative to grant eternal life and to act as eternal judge, as bestowed by the Father. These indicate a divine person, even if the word “deity” is not used. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Burke wrote, “While Son of God and Messiah are connected in the Gospel of John, the major theological point brought out by Jesus’ divine sonship is his own divinity.” [88]

Alternate Views on “Messiah” and “Son of God”

Jesus’ Deity Surpassed Expectations

Witherington, [89] Nicol, [90] and others asserted that the Jews were not expecting anything other than a human Messiah. Edersheim confirmed that there was no conception of a “Divine Personality,” but did see an expectation of the Messiah as superhuman. [91] This appears to be an accurate assessment.

But even if allowed the superhuman model, this concept of Messiah does not do justice to the blatantly divine portrayal of Jesus as found in John’s Gospel. As Liddon taught at Oxford over 100 years ago, “St John, beyond any other of the sacred writers, is the persistent herald and teacher of our Lord's Divinity.” [92] Raymond Brown—certainly not an evangelical fundamentalist—wrote candidly about the Gospels: “The idea that he was divine I find on most gospel pages.” [93]

Witherington explained the method and process of John’s purpose. “The process of coming to adequate faith is described, and is seen by the end of the Gospel to invoke more than just a belief in Jesus’ signs. It must also entail a belief in the divine Son of God, having come from and returned to God, and having been glorified in his death, resurrection, and exaltation. This Gospel wishes to make it abundantly clear the extent of what one must believe about the person and works of Christ.” [94]

Although Witherington posits belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as essential for justification, this may be an unwarranted assumption. Niemelä has argued convincingly that each sign was sufficient for belief. [95] The plethora of verses confirming salvific belief after each sign further substantiates his claim (2:11; 4:53; 6:14; 7:31; 10:41–42; 11:45–48; 12:10–11, 37, 42; 20:8, 29). Since John 20:31 was written after these signs occurred, it would not appear logical to insist upon a progressive revelation requiring salvific belief to include all eight of the signs, even the cross and resurrection. The eleven disciples were justified prior to the resurrection. [96] Believing that Jesus was the Messiah and God seems to have been sufficient.

Belief in the Promise of Christ rather than the Person of Christ

Niemelä defines “the Christ, the Son of God” through John 11:25–27. A person must believe that Jesus guarantees eternal life in order to have eternal life, since believing Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God, entails believing that He gives me eternal life.” [97] Niemelä concludes that we must believe in Jesus’ promise, not his person. However, there are alternate explanations and definitions. Certainly, the apostle records the claims of Jesus to grant eternal life; yet eternal life is not mentioned in association with any of the prior six signs. Every person who believed in the Gospel of John believed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of God” without any obvious concern for Jesus granting eternal life. Using Niemelä’s logic, a case could be made that belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the King of Israel (Christ) as announced by Nathanael requires belief that Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent or, in the first sign, that He could turn water into wine. Isolating the definition to one of the eight signs contradicts Niemelä’s own proposition that each miracle stands alone as sufficient for belief. In John’s Gospel, only seven of the hundred references to “believing” occur in conjunction with eternal life, and we find all of these in only three passages. [98] The comprehensive introduction does not mention eternal life through Jesus. [99] Nathanael’s proclamation of Jesus as King of Israel and Son of God also matches John 20:31. Therefore, John 11:25–27 is more likely descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Furthermore, John 20:31 does not say that we must believe that Jesus gives eternal life. Rather, we must “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” By believing those essential truths, we “may have life in his name.” John did not say we must believe “He gives eternal life” in order to be justified. That is an assumption derived from the isolated text of John 11:25–27. If belief that Jesus gives eternal life is required for justification, then John missed this critical opportunity to include it in his purpose statement for the eight signs. This would be a serious omission. Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, does indeed give eternal life, but that is different from requiring one to believe that He gives eternal security. In John’s Gospel, eternal life is the result of belief (3:16) and knowing God (17:3). John’s purpose for the signs is that we might believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (His person), and that once we are believing (present active participle, i.e., “are believers”) we “may have life in his name.” This statement presents life only as the result, not the condition. Niemelä and others have made John 20:31 a conditional sentence by placing the apodosis (eternal life) into the protasis (belief in Jesus). Thus, we must believe in the result as the condition for eternal life. In addition, eternal life has been limited to justification rather than abundant life and knowing God (John 10:10; 17:3). A requirement for believing in assurance of eternal security for justification cannot be found in this Gospel. It must be deduced from debatable logic.

Niemelä claims, “John does not identify the mere proper identification of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, to be a life-giving proposition.” [100] What Niemelä belittles as “the mere proper identification of Jesus” John repeatedly highlights as essential. We are given life (1:4) and become God’s children by believing in his name (person, John 1:12), not believing in his promise. The phrase τοις πιστεύουσιν εἰ τὸ ὁνομα αυτους does not mean “believe in his promise.” Repeatedly, persons believed in “his name,” believed “in him,” or believed that Jesus was “I am” or “the Christ” or “the Son of Man.” John records those persons as possessing (or rejecting) eternal life based upon belief in His person, not a promise (2:11, 23; 3:15, 16, 18, 35, 39; 6:29, 40, 47; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:24, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38; 10:42; 11:25, 45; 12:11, 37, 42, 44; 13:19; 17:20). Yet Niemelä said, “In point of fact, Jesus and John repeatedly present Jesus promising everlasting life to those who believe Him as He promises life.” [101] To the contrary, not once in this entire Gospel do we find John identifying anyone who believes in Jesus’ promise. The only person whom John might have possibly recorded as believing Jesus’ promise is Martha. But how could she have believed a promise that she did not understand?

Jesus’ words to Martha were “whoever believes in me.” He did not say, “Whoever believes my promise” (11:25). Martha did not respond, “Yes, Lord I believe you guarantee me eternal life; I believe your promise.” Instead, she believed he was “the Christ, the Son of God.” She was focused upon the person of Christ as Savior and God, not the Giver of Life. That is precisely why she did not believe Jesus’ claim for the immediate resurrection of her brother, Lazarus. Jesus’ response proves that Martha did not believe his promise. “Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, ‘Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?’” (John 11:39–40, emphasis mine). This indicates that Jesus was speaking of an immediate resurrection (11:25b).

Martha did not understand that Jesus was the Giver of Life in an immediate bodily resurrection for Lazarus. If she did not understand Jesus, she could not have believed his life-giving promise. She believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. She did not believe “this” (i.e., Jesus’ words) in John 11:25–26. She did not understand his words as a reference to the immediate resurrection. That is why Jesus gently rebuked her for unbelief. Then John mentions only that, as a result of this resurrection, the Jews believed in Jesus (not his promise of life, 11:45). Mary and Martha had most likely already believed in Him. That is a possible reason why Martha uses the perfect tense in 11:27; she had already believed with continuing results. Prior to 11:25–27, Martha had believed the person of Jesus, not his promise. In 11:27, Martha does not stop with the Johannine salvific proclamation (as Nathanael did), but completes her sentence with “the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” Her emphasis indicated a promised One, who is both Messiah and deity. It appears Martha had no hesitation in her affirmative response because she had already believed in the person of Christ. Her difficulty was believing that He would perform a resurrection immediately rather than at the last day (11:24). That is why Jesus rebuked her unbelief (11:40).

The use of John 11:25–27 as a definition for “the Christ, the Son of God” falters on Martha’s misunderstanding of Jesus’ claim. Martha missed Jesus’ point. It would be less than convincing (and even illogical) for John to place his definition of “the Christ, the Son of God” in the mouth of a person who did not understand Christ’s promise of immediate bodily resurrection in this passage. One cannot believe a promise one does not understand. What a strange place for John to place his crucial “definition.”

Not one instance of belief in Jesus’ promise can be found in John’s Gospel. Meanwhile, at least thirty times John records that someone believed in his person (or did not believe in his person). Jesus said that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Jesus did not say, “Believes in His promise.” It would be an incompetent author who expected his readers to believe in Jesus’ promise without ever giving a single example or a clear definitive statement that such a promise must be believed. As a competent author guided by the Holy Spirit, John repeatedly emphasized belief in the person of Jesus as Christ and God. Belief in the person of Jesus gives life (justification). Once we believe in Jesus’ person, we may presently experience eternal life (sanctification) in his person—knowing Jesus is eternal life (John 10:10; 17:3; 20:31b).

By requiring belief in the promise of Jesus rather than his person for justification, we omit the critical aspect of forgiveness of sin. But Jesus as the Savior from sin was the message of John the Baptizer (1:29, 35), which John placed in his introduction. When the Samaritan woman asked Jesus for His living water at the well, the first thing Jesus did was to confront her with her sin (4:16). She needed a Savior to forgive sin. The Samaritans believed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Savior of the world” (4:42). The Samaritans were probably not particularly interested in Jerusalem’s political deliverance from Rome. The Savior was taking away their sins as the Baptizer had foretold (1:29). Three times Jesus told the Jews that unless they believed He was “I am,” they would die in their sins (8:21, 24 [2x]). That was a promise. What good does it do to believe Jesus’ promise or guarantee of eternal life if we do not first believe that we are sinners and Jesus is God who forgives our sin?

The conflict throughout this Gospel was not ever directly over Jesus’ promise of life, but over his person. “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). “‘Before Abraham was, I Am’” (8:58). “‘If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’ Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you did not believe’” (10:25). “‘For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you being a man make yourself God’” (10:33). For justification, we believe in the person, not the promise. Believing that a mere man can give eternal life is ludicrous. Only God can forgive sin and only God can give eternal life. This is why John highlighted the person of Jesus—the Christ, the Son of God.

Furthermore, if this passage (11:25–27) is used to define the statement in John 20:31, the Greek construct demands an addition to that purpose statement. The kai requires believing (1) that Jesus gives eternal life and (2) that he will resurrect our physical bodies. John relates this aspect of bodily resurrection several times (5:21, 29; 6:39–40; 11:25–27), two of these times to Christ’s enemies (certainly not as an emphasis). Neither Jesus’ granting eternal life nor the resurrection is paramount in John’s Gospel. One could even argue that believing in an immediate resurrection was required for eternal life based upon John 11:25–27. These factors argue against using 11:25–27 as the definition of the statement in John 20:31.

If John’s Gospel utilized the same pattern as his first epistle, the purpose statement would have to be at the beginning (cf., 1 John 1:1–4), with a thematic summary at the end (cf., 1 John 5:18–20, which explains the truth “we know” about fellowship with God). Perhaps the purpose statement of John’s Gospel is also at the beginning (1:1–18) in identifying the person of Christ as both God and man who came into our world. All of the later elements in the book are contained in the first chapter. Perhaps John 20:31 summarizes this emphasis on the person of Jesus introduced in 1:1–18, expanded in 1:19–51, and explained in 2:1–20:30. This would match John’s pattern in his first epistle. If so, this would also argue against using 11:25–27 as the definition of a “purpose” statement in John 20:31.

Nevertheless, Wilkin (like Niemelä) relies upon John 11:25–27 to define belief in Jesus as believing in God’s promise of eternal life:

To believe in Jesus (“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16). . . . Assurance is of the essence of believing in Jesus for everlasting life. . . . Since the possession of eternal life is based on believing God’s promise and on nothing else, how could works ever be necessary for assurance? . . . And, once you believe in Christ, you will be sure you are saved because your salvation is dependent on your belief in God’s promise, not on your works. [102]

Wilkin has substituted belief in God’s promise for belief in Christ. According to Wilkin, “eternal life is based on believing God’s promise.” In contrast, the apostle John declared that we have life by believing in Christ. Wilkin has confused the promise with the person. Believing that Jesus “guarantees everlasting life” cannot save anyone unless he believes “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” John never writes that we must believe God’s promise to receive eternal life. Wilkin assumes this based on John 11:25–27. Rather, we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (deity, God himself) and that he is the Christ.

John places the concept of God in the prologue and the term Christ in the introductory chapter. “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29). The promised Lamb was here, as John repeated in 1:36. Through Andrew, the author connects Jesus the Lamb of God with Messiah and Christ (1:41). Thus, John introduces Christ by connecting this term with the removal of sin. Jesus’ extended evangelistic interaction with the woman at the well dealt with her sin (4:16–18). The Christ was the Savior from sin.

John 1:12 clarifies that our rebirth comes by believing in his name (person), not by believing a promise. We do not find Jesus’ promise either in the first chapter or the statement in 20:31. The promise of life is the result of belief, not the condition for it. Wilkin has apparently altered the requirements for eternal life in John’s Gospel. He has left out John’s requirement for belief in Jesus as the “Son of God” (deity, in John’s usage) and has added to the Gospel a requirement for belief in God’s promise of eternal life (with at least a temporary assurance of eternal security).

Therefore, a definition of “the Christ, the Son of God” as the “Giver of Eternal Life” (based primarily upon John 11:25–27) (1) ignores every example in John’s Gospel where people believed in His person, not His promise of life, (2) assumes that belief in eternal security is required despite the lack of even a single example of believing in Jesus’ promise, (3) isolates the definition to a single sign, (4) confuses the result (life) with the condition (belief) in 20:31, (5) assumes that Martha experienced salvific faith with that confession even though she did not understand Jesus, (6) logically requires an additional belief in a bodily resurrection (possibly immediately) for justification, and (7) assumes that “life in His name” in 20:31b refers only to justification. If John expected his readers to derive a definition of “the Christ, the Son of God” from an account of a single sign (11:25–27), he was exceptionally esoteric. If it had been required for justification, John should have placed this definition in his purpose statement for the signs. In contrast, deriving the definition of “Christ, the Son of God” from John’s introduction and his entire Gospel provides a more logical, comprehensive, and contextual definition.

Although Wilkin’s deductions could be correct, the lack of any definitive statement about belief in a promise (plus a plethora of contrary evidences) strongly suggests that the apostle does not have “promise” in view. The instrumental cause of our justification is at stake. Dismissing belief in the deity of Christ as nonessential (in a Gospel saturated with solid statements, claims, and proofs) while demanding belief in eternal security through His promise (possibly inferred a few times) might be compared to missing the forest for a shrub.

Conclusion

If “Messiah” (Christ) does not express deity, then John is saying that belief in a mere human being gives eternal life (20:30–31) and the non-divine Messiah anticipated by the Jews can take away sin, offer eternal life of his own initiative, and act as eternal judge. How can a mere human possibly accomplish these divine acts?

Without any clear evidence for the use of “Son of God” as a messianic term, it would appear unusual for the first-century Jews to have understood John’s use of “Son of God” as meaning human “Messiah.” The Jews were expecting a human Messiah: The Gospel of John provides a divine One. The terms “Son,” “Son of God,” and “Son of Man”—all point to a divine identity. The Gospel itself highlights the Jews’ understanding of this component of deity. A plethora of verses exalt Christ as exercising rights reserved only for Yahweh, the only living God. [103]

The words and signs of Jesus convinced many Jews that He was indeed God in human form (although the church had not yet formalized the doctrine of a Triune God as we understand it today). Jesus was preexistent with God. He claimed equality with God. He could forgive sins, grant eternal life, pronounce eternal judgment, and work miraculous signs, including resurrecting His own body from the dead (John 10:18). Jesus accepted worship as God. Deity exudes from the pages of John’s Gospel.

The argument that the Old Testament and the Old Testament Apocrypha do not represent “Son of God” as divine is irrelevant. John introduced a new understanding for the Jewish term “Son of God,” just as he introduced a new understanding of the Greek word logos. The Gospel of John must stand on its own merits by allowing the author to determine his own meaning for “Son of God.” Yes, the Jews did expect a human Messiah: the apostle John gave them Deity incarnate.

No convincing external evidence exists for understanding “Son of God” as Messiah. With the clear emphasis in John’s Gospel upon the deity of Jesus, the internal evidence of John should be given priority in determining the meaning of “Son of God.” John’s introduction explained the crucial theology and titles of Jesus through which we should interpret the remainder of his Gospel. The definition of “Son of God” (and “Christ”) should be determined from the entire Gospel of John, rather than from isolated verses. The Christ (Messiah) indicated the promised Savior of the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David who would reign as King, while “Son of God” highlighted His deity. Furthermore, immediately preceding the climactic statement for detailing the eight signs, we find the confession of Thomas—“My Lord and My God.”

In John’s Gospel, to believe that Jesus is the “Son of God” is to believe that He is God. John wrote to convince his readers that Jesus, who is the Christ, is also the divine Son of God. This may be the reason John did not write in 20:31, “Believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God” or “Believe Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God.” His point was this: the promised Messiah is the same as the divine Son of God. The eight signs of Jesus verified all of Jesus’ divine attributes introduced by John the Baptizer. Thus, the apostle records that the people said, “‘John performed no sign, but all the things John spoke about this Man were true.’ And many believed in Him there” (John 10:41–42). The Baptizer’s claims for the coming Christ—deity and forgiveness of sins—as recorded by John in his introduction, were still ringing in their ears as they observed Jesus. This cannot be overemphasized. Persons did not believe simply because they saw a miracle. Human prophets had performed miracles. These people in John’s Gospel were convinced that the human working those miracles was the very preexistent God who, as John the Baptizer had foretold, would forgive the sins of the world.

John wrote to convince us that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” That belief results in life. We must believe in the person of Christ, not his promise. Believing in Jesus results in eternal life; the apostle does not say one must believe in his promise with the result that one receives life. The apostle John champions belief in the deity of Jesus as necessary for eternal life. In contrast to Marshall’s theory, [104] only because the early church believed that Jesus was divine did it allow Jewish believers to worship Him as they worshiped Yahweh. According to the Gospel of John, believing that Jesus is God is required for receiving the free gift of eternal life and for experiencing eternal life now by knowing God and Jesus (John 17:3).

Notes

1. Millard Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 387.
2. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 415. He also said, “John is the most concerned with theology, and especially with Christology” (ibid., 411).
3. Everett Harrison, John: The Gospel of Faith (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 26–7. “He is an evangelistic debater, trying to give men eternal life by proving certain points to them.” The view that it was written to believers for discipleship does not seem convincing given the purpose statement, if it is taken at face value. Those who have already believed do not need to believe again in order to receive eternal life.
4. However, this cannot be asserted with certainty, nor can it be said that John’s Gospel was written only to unbelievers, since John 13–17 emphasizes instructions for “washed” believers.
5. A. T. Robinson, The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (New York: Fleming Revell, 1916), 22, states that in this Gospel, John “hopes to win converts to Christ by his book.”
6. Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 346–7. He views it as primarily written as a missionary Gospel, but admits that it could benefit disciples also. “This Gospel was written in order that the audience might believe in Jesus as the divine Son of God and the Christ; and so have life (John 20:31)” (ibid., 57).
7. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 154–156.
8. George Beasley-Murray, John, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 36 of WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 27.
9. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 61.
10. Herschel Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 56.
11. Alan Richardson, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Collier, 1959; repr., New York: Collier, 1962), 56.
12. Reginald Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner’s, 1965), 32.
13. I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1990), 129.
14. John Collins, “The Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel,” DRev 95 (1976): 125.
15. Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (London: Burns and Oates, 1976), 109.
16. David J. Ellis, “John,” The International Bible Commentary, ed. F. F. Bruce, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1235.
17. George Reith, The Gospel According to St. John (Edinburgh: Clark, 1889), 31 (italics mine).
18. St. John Chrysostom, “Homily 21 (John 1. 49, 50)” of Homilies on the Gospel of John, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).
19. Tertullian, “Sundry August Titles, Descriptive of Deity, Applied to the Son, Not, as Praxeas Would Have It, Only to the Father,” chap. 17 in Against Praxeas.
20. Nonnos of Panopolis, Paraphrase of the Holy Gospel of John, chap. 1, lines 201–4, trans. M. A. Prost, (San Diego, 1998), http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/–5876/chapter_1.html (accessed November 15, 2004).
21. Augustine of Hippo, “Tractates on the Gospel of John 7.20 (John 1:34–51),” in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).
22. Jean Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, trans. William Pringle, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 42–3.
23. E. Earl Ellis, Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Robert B. Sloan and Mickeal C. Parsons, National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, Special Studies Series, no. 11 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon, 1999), 18.
24. C. D. F. Moule, The Origins of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 137. Moule viewed Christology as developmental rather than evolutionary (ibid., 9) and the “‘Son of Man’” as distinctly preexistent only in John’s Gospel (ibid., 18).
25. Arthur Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 68.
26. A. T. Robertson, The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (New York: Fleming Revell, 1916), 50.
27. Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, The Triune God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 178.
28. William Loader, “The central structure of Johannine Christology,” NTS 30 (April 1984): 202. He added, “And on the other hand defining the relationship with God not on grounds of his being, but on grounds of where he has been and the relationship which he has.”
29. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 166.
30. Andrew Koestenberger, Encountering John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 39–40.
31. E. Earl Ellis, Perspectives on John, 83–4.
32. Almost all authors find seven. However, the resurrection was specifically stated by Christ to be a sign in John 2:18–22. See John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 16 (Spring 2003): 17–28.
33. D. A. Carson, “‘I Am’ Sayings,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 585.
34. This is understood by numerous authors, including many who view “Son of God” as purely messianic.
35. Alan Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 126–127.
36. New Advent Encyclopedia, s.v. “Son of God,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ 14142b.htm (accessed November 10, 2004).
37. Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 182.
38. Craig R. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” JSNT 39 (1990): 23–34.
39. R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, translation, and notes by Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, vol. 29 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 83.
40. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 185.
41. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” 23.
42. Ibid., 24.
43. Ibid., 27.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, NBC (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972), 119.
48. Eight humans received visions before and after Christ’s incarnation. These include Zacharias (Luke 1:22), women at the tomb (Luke 24:23), Ananias (Acts 9:10), Paul (Acts 9:12, 16:9, 18:9, 26:19), Cornelius (Acts 10:3), Peter (Acts 10:17, 11:5), and John (Rev. 9:17). Visions were not unusual. Peter assumed the angel releasing him from prison was merely a vision rather than an actual occurrence (Acts 12:9). Zacharias did not tell the people he had seen a vision: They perceived he had seen a vision.
49. Some authors argue that Jesus’ promise of further revelation indicates that Nathanael had not yet believed. Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Crossroads, 1982), 317, states, “Nonetheless, the evangelist did not mean to suggest that Nathanael recognized in Jesus the full dignity of (metaphysical) sonship of God; otherwise Jesus would not have promised a still further revelation of his nature (vv. 50, 51).” This assumption ignores the fact that all of the disciples received greater revelations of Christ’s glory throughout His earthly life, and even following His ascension.
50. Rudolph Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 104: “The question again serves to make Jesus’ miraculous knowledge evident: Jesus has seen him before with far-seeing gaze under the fig tree. This proof of Jesus’ miraculous power overwhelms Nathanael, and he confesses . . . .” Bultmann views the fig tree as literal, not symbolic. See ibid., 104 n. 6.
51. David J. Ellis, “John,” 1235.
52. Arno Gaebelein, The Gospel of John: A Complete Analytical Exposition (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1965), 44: “The Lord had first demonstrated to Nathanael His supernatural insight, and now He reveals His supernatural sight, His omniscience and His omnipresence, both of which show that He is God.”
53. John Gill, An Exposition of the Gospel According to John, Newport Commentary Series (Springfield, MO: Particular Baptist Press, 2003), 48, “But by nature, as being of the same essence, and possessed of the same perfections God is; and of which he was convinced by the instances he gave of his omniscience; for it was from hence, and no other consideration, that he concludes Him to be the Son of God: wherefore this phrase must be understood of Him, not as Mediator, but as a divine person....”
54. Frederick L. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an historical and critical introduction, translated from the third French edition with update (New York: Funk and Wagnells, 1886), 337. “Thou believest because of this wonder of omniscience; this is only the prelude of more remarkable signs of the same kind.”
55. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Revell, n.d.; repr., Hendrickson: Peabody, 1996). “Nathanael is much surprised at this, upon which Christ gives him a further proof of his omnisciency, and a kind memorial of his former devotion.”
56. Arthur W. Pink, Why Four Gospels? (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1921; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1999). “Here only do we read of Christ saying to Nathaniel, “‘Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee’ (1:48): thus manifesting His Omniscience.”
57. Robert L. Reymond, Jesus: Divine Messiah (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), 122.
58. John F. Walvoord, “Series in Christology-Part 2: The Preincarnate Son of God,” BSac 104, no. 414 (April 1947): 155. “That God is omnipresent is the clear teaching of Scripture (Deut 4:39; Ps 139:7–10; Prov 15:3; Isa 66:1; Jer 23:24; Acts 17:27). It is evident that Christ possessed the same attribute. His promises of abiding with His disciples forever (Matt 28:20), and His promise to indwell the believer (John 14:18, 20, 23) are impossible of any literal fulfillment unless Christ is also omnipresent. The experience of Nathaniel (John 1:48) would imply that Christ was spiritually omnipresent even during His life on earth.”
59. Brooke F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1978), 27.
60. For example, G. H. Macgregor, The Gospel of John, MNTC (New York: Harper, 1928), 42–3. “He is amazed not at a feat of physical long-sightedness but at the divine clairvoyance which is able to read at a glance both the scene and the subject of his recent meditation . . . .”
61. The textual variant would further this argument. David A. Fennema, “John 1:18 ‘God the only son,’” NTS 31 (January 1985): 124–135. “Surprisingly, John 1:18 unambiguously calls Jesus ‘God.’ Since the absolute monogenes means ‘only child’ and is linked to theos rather than pater, the internal evidence supports the external testimony in favoring the reading monogenes theos over ho monogenes huios. . . . Furthermore, the pattern of John’s unusual use of the anarthrous theos throughout the prologue to designate both God and the Logos reveals his intention to expand the traditional Jewish, monotheistic conception of deity. No longer coterminous with the Father, the one true God is now to be recognized as both God the Father and ‘God the only Son.’” See also Merrill Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 72, and Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 74–82.
62. Some authors, especially those who identify Nathanael as Thomas, will argue that his later disbelief forces a non-divine interpretation. However, Peter, given revelation by God himself, pronounced the same salvific phrase of belief (Jesus as the Christ and Son of God), but later denied Christ thrice. John the Baptist doubted later. Doubt does not diminish the proof of initial belief.
63. James Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 16. However, “It follows also that if we do think in terms of a developing Son of God Christology (§7.1) we should not assume that it was a development from a low Christology to a high Christology” (ibid., 63).
64. Ibid., 58.
65. Dom Hawton, “‘Son of God’ in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 10 (1963–4): 234.
66. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley Guthrie and Charles Hall, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 274. “The Ethiopian Enoch 105.2 is probably later interpolation. The passages in II (4) Esd. (7:28f., 13:32; 37–52; 14:9) can hardly be considered as examples, because they point to the pais in the sense of the ebed Yahweh and do not refer directly to the sonship.”
67. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 279.
68. Ibid., 266–7.
69. George Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Rome, Italy: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1987), 258.
70. Ibid., 271.
71. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 164.
72. Ibid.
73. D. A. Carson, Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 162.
74. Marinus de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 150.
75. Merrill Tenney, JOHN: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 169.
76. Murray Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 288–9.
77. Ibid., 103. These three appearances occur in the three successive stages of Jesus’ “career”—prior to, during, and after his coming to his own creation (ibid., 285).
78. Richard Bauckham, God Crucified (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998; repr., 1999), 46. “It was in Jesus’ exaltation to share the divine throne in heaven that the early Christians recognized his inclusion in the divine identity.” The “I am” “occurs as a divine revelation of unique identity seven times in the Hebrew Bible: once in Deuteronomy, in one of the most important monotheistic passages of the Torah, and six times in Deutero-Isaiah.” John’s Gospel matches these seven references in the Hebrew Bible (4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8 last repeated twice for the sake of an emphatic climax). Ibid., 55.
79. Ibid., 10–11.
80. Although the Codex Vaticanus, Papyri 66 and 75, and Codex Sinaiticus support the rendering anthropos, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the majority of extant texts support “‘Son of God.”‘ If we deny the use here, then we must also use the Coptic texts in 1:18 over the majority text. This would unquestionably attribute deity to Jesus. “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Furthermore, John’s usage equates “Son” with “God.”
81. Urban C. von Wahlde, “He Has Given to the Son To Have Life in Himself (John 5, 26),” Bib 85 (2004): 409–412, http://www.bsw.org/?l= 71851&a=Ani13.html (accessed November 10, 2004).
82. Stephen Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter, 2nd ed. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 244. I would add that, of course, Philo introduced logos to Jewish theology.
83. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 241.
84. James F. McGrath, “Are Christians Monotheists? The Answer of St. John’s Gospel,” (lecture, North of England Institute for Christian Education, Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, England, March 27, 1998), http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5490/6thform.htm (accessed November 10, 2004). “This was explained in various ways by Philo and by the later rabbis, but it is clear that already in the first century it was thought that God worked on the Sabbath, and that this was a prerogative of God alone. For Jesus to claim to do what God alone does was for this reason understood as a claim to be ‘equal to God.’. . . However, ‘the Jews’ as they are presented in the Gospel of John do not recognize Jesus as one who has been appointed by God. They thus accuse him of ‘making himself equal to God.’ That is to say, the problem is not ‘equality with God’ in and of itself, but whether Jesus acts in this way as God’s agent. The issue is whether Jesus has been sent by God and is obedient to God, or whether he is a rebellious, glory-seeking upstart who claims divine prerogatives for himself. ‘The Jews’ accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God—that is to say, they accuse him of putting himself on the level of God, by claiming to do what God does when he has not in fact been appointed by God. They thus feel that Jesus has committed blasphemy: by making these claims, he is felt to have insulted God.”
85. Carl Brumback, Accent On The Ascension! (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1955), quoted in C. C. Ryrie, Book Reviews, BSac 114 (April 1957): 173. Brumback explained the importance of Christ maintaining his omniscience, yet being dependent upon the Father. “If omnipresence was restored, then that means that it was relinquished while our Lord was on earth which idea of course is an improper doctrine of kenosis and actually a denial of the full deity of Christ during the period of humiliation. Such verses as John 1:48 and 3:13 make it clear that omnipresence was not relinquished while He was on earth.”
86. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 283. “When Jesus rarely uses ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptics, it refers to his obedience to the divine plan or his secret relationship to God not publicly revealed.”
87. Martin Hengel, The Son of God—The origin of Christology and the History of the Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, trans. John Bowden (Tuebingen, Germany: Mohr; repr., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). Hengel distinguishes between “Son of God” in preexistence, in baptism, and in exaltation (as in Hebrews).
88. G. T. Burke, “Son of God,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1125–6.
89. Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 275–6. Although he admits that in the Similitudes of Enoch there may be a suggestion of a preexistent extraordinary being.
90. W. Nicol, The Seemeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1972), 79–80. “The Jews did not expect the Messiah to be a wonder-worker or one legitimatised by signs. He would be a normal human being who would bring political unity and freedom to Israel.”
91. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: New Updated Edition (n.p.: Hendrickson, 1993), 120–1. “First, the idea of a Divine Personality, and of the union of the two Natures in the Messiah, seems to have been foreign to the Jewish auditory of Jesus of Nazareth, and even at first to His disciples. Secondly, they appear to have regarded the Messiah as far above the ordinary human, royal, prophetic, and even angelic type, to such extent, that the boundary-line separating it from Divine Personality is of the narrowest, so that, when the conviction of the reality of the Messianic manifestation in Jesus burst on their minds, this boundary-line was easily, almost naturally, overstepped, and those who would have shrunk from framing their belief in such dogmatic form, readily owned and worshipped Him as the Son of God.”
92. Henry Parry Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Eight Lectures Preached Before the University of Oxford in the Year 1866 (London: Rivintons, 1869), 273.
93. Raymond Brown, “Did Jesus Know He was God?” BTB 15 (1985): 77. He explained that Jesus would not have said, “I am God,” since that meant the Father, but would have approved of the Gospel of John since it presents him as equal with the Father.
94. Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 31. Also, “This Gospel was written in order that the audience might believe in Jesus as the divine Son of God and the Christ; and so have life (John 20:31)” (ibid., 57).
95. Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” 17–28.
96. Ibid. See John 13:10–11 and 15:3.
97. Ibid., 24.
98. These are John 3:15–18; 6:40–69; and 11:25–27. Believing without eternal life anywhere in the context appears in 1:7, 12, 50; 2:11, 23; 4:39–42, 53; 5:24; 7:31; 8:23, 30; 9:35–41; 10:25, 41–42; 11:45; 12:11, 27–42. Thirteen of these are addressed to the disciples after they were regenerated (John 13–20).
99. John 1:4 may perhaps be viewed as such, but may as easily speak of abundant life. A promise of eternal life through belief in that promise is not present.
100. John Niemelä, “The Use and Abuse of John’s Purpose Statement” (paper, Grace Evangelical Society National Conference, Irving, Texas, March 7, 2007).
101. Ibid.
102. Robert Wilkin, “Affirmation of Belief,” http://www.faithalone.org/about/4.html (accessed March 3, 2007); cf. idem, “You Can Be Sure,” http://www.faithalone.org/Sure/Default.htm (accessed March 3, 2007). See also idem, Secure and Sure: Grasping the Promises of God (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2005), 30: “Assurance, the idea that all who believe in Jesus are certain that they are eternally secure, is the promise of the gospel.” Also, “Those who believe in Jesus have eternal life and will never perish. That’s the promise. If we believe the promise, we won’t perish and we have everlasting life. It is that simple” (ibid., 25). “By ‘committed followers of Christ,’ I do not necessarily mean born-again people. I mean people within Christendom who are committed followers of Christ, whether they have ever believed the saving message or not” (ibid., 206 n. 1, emphasis mine). Belief in God’s promise cannot save (justify) us. We must believe in the person of Jesus.
103. Although outside the present discussion, it is interesting that all nine times that Satan or demons address Jesus in the Synoptics, they use the term “Son of God.” See Matt. 4:3, 6; 8:29; Mark 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:3, 9, 41, and 8:28. Only “Son of God” is used except in Luke 4:41, where we find “Christ, the Son of God.”
104. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament, 129: “The early church was not specifically concerned in the beginning with the divinity of Jesus.” The first disciples may not have comprehended the full implications of His divinity prior to His passion. However, immediately after His resurrection, the early church worshipped him as divine.